Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”
Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.
Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

“There is no honor in resisting ‘outside pressure’, just to pat ourselves on the back for being ‘impartial,'” Twitter engineer Marina Zhao replied, adding: “Twitter does not exist in a vacuum, and it is wrong to ignore the serious real-world harm, and to equate that with political viewpoints.”

She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
“They are what they hate.” - B4L

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

Big brother is a complex. It can not be defined by simple terms like “government” or “private business”.

There are several natural reasons for the complex to develop in this way. The first is graft and corruption. It is much more profitable to engage in graft via outsourcing government activities to corporations and businesses. It is relatively difficult for elected politicians and government bureaucrats to engage in money skimming while in office. But as a government contractor, the profits are almost endless.

Number two is the fact that outsourced government corporatism is a loophole to bypass constitutional restrictions on government. This would be the main point of the current controversy about various forms of internet censorship.

And finally, size and scope would be a limiting factor without a distributed structure. Government as a single, centrally controlled, hierarchical entity could not possibly effectively do what is being done now. It has to be decentralized, with some incentives to innovate and invent. New companies and technology can be absorbed when they reach a critical mass and join the complex via contracts and regulation.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
“They are what they hate.” - B4L

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45

The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.

NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.

SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...

PLEASE DONATE to Cindy Lake for Clark County, Nevada, Commissioner
- Good Name recognition, ran in 2014 and only lost by 1% to a million dollar campaign
- Has active support of the county GOP
- Opponent, Jim Gibson, is vulnerable and has a history losing due to the same scandal
- 2018 GOP primary result was 72%
- For liberty in Vegas

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

But they're private enterprises being threatened by the government. Have you seen the video of the congressional hearing where Facebook is threatened? By the way Ron Paul was censored recently as well. Facebook is not the problem, government is. I seriously doubt Facebook would voluntarily do that much censoring.

I'm hoping that some of the people being censored will sue the government for 1st amendment violations.

The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

“Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

I’ve heard the public forum vs. “editorial control” in the form of censorship argument before. Not sure that it holds water though.

A media outlet certainly controls what it’s writer’s publish. But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Likewise, a platform like Twitter does not create the content, it is all created by the users. Banning someone for something that is against the law is a pretty common and basic usage rule. Does that equal “editorial control”? It doesn’t seem like it.

Let’s go further. Suppose the platform is called “Democrats Unite”, and the content is created by users. Now suppose that Republicans go there and post press releases from all GOP members of Congress, and other assorted GOP politicians. Should that be allowed? Is it ”editorial control” to not only ban those who advocate illegal activities, but also ban those who are from the “competition”?

The biggest problem is that Twitter has never called itself “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. If they had done that from the beginning, would there be an issue right now? Instead, Twitter explicitly called itself an open public forum, and with that as the premise, fully took over that market niche. Nearly every politician, pundit, musician, business, celebrity, tv personality and newscaster created and promoted an account on the open, “free speech” Twitter platform.

Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
“They are what they hate.” - B4L

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.